Intelligent Design The Scientific Alternative to Evolution

THE NATIONAL CATHOLIC BIOETHICS QUARTERLY ^ | AUTUMN 2003 | William S. Harris and John H. Calvert

[rob777]

Sooner or later everyone asks the question, “Where do we come from?” The answer carries profound, life-molding implications. Until this question is answered we cannot solve another fundamental question that is key to ethics, religion, and the meaning of life (if any): “Are we here for a purpose?” There are two possible answers: the universe and life and its diversity—natural phenomena—are the product of 1) a combination of only natural laws and chance (the “naturalistic hypothesis)”; or 2) a combination of law, chance, and design—the activity of a mind or some form of intelligence that has the power to manipulate matter and energy (the “design hypothesis”). The latter produces purpose, the former does not.

The naturalistic hypothesis is supported by theories of chemical evolution (with respect to the origin of the universe and of life) and by Darwinian evolution (with respect to the origin of the diversity of life). The design hypothesis is supported by the purposeful characteristics of exceedingly complex natural systems that are frequently described as “fine tuned.” Each hypothesis is densely laden with philosophical and religious baggage, and clear thinking is required in order to separate the

science from the philosophy, the evidence from the implications, and reality from imagination.

...

[edsheppa]

I wonder what will make this one different from the other 9000.

Maybe on this one some IDist will make a practicably testable prediction from their "theory." Alternatively maybe some IDist will admit that their "theory" is incapable of doing that and is therefore not science.

[mulligan]

Tell or explain to me what and how science proves evolution. Give proof. Examples that will stand screening

If you believe that science proves evolution then you are intellectually dishonest.

[Clemenza]

Intelligent Design is about as scientific as alchemy and the medicine show. HL Mencken, where are you when we need you to write about these Boobs?

[Dinsdale]

If you believe that science proves ANYTHING then you are intellectually dishonest.

Fixed it for you.

Simple facts: Science doe'nt deal in proofs. ID is'nt science.

[Coyoteman]

Doesn't ID simply acknowledge the limits of science to date and say, look we don't really know how we got here, but given the complexity and profound probability of all these things coming together naturally to give rise to our environment, something bigger than us is at play?

No, sorry. CS/ID has clearly been developed to sneak religion into the classroom, where it is otherwise banned. Creationism lost at the Supreme Court level in the late 1980s, after which ID was invented. It claims to be a serious science without using any of the methods of science; in fact, every effort is made to destroy the scientific method enough that even ID can sneak in.

IDers even have to deny that their designer is the Hebrew god, which everyone can see is the case. I post alternative creation stories, but IDers can't stand them; they're the wrong religion!

CS/ID is thus based on a lie--denying the obvious religious connection while in fact the whole point of the effort is to force religion into the classroom. Its easy to document, just check out the various websites that advocate ID. You won't find the alternative creation stories I post. But you'll find lots of bible passages. Check it out!

[Ma3lst0rm]

I don't think it has much to do with acquiescence to religious beliefs. There are some who take that tact but it doesn't accomplish much. Intelligent design or the theory of abrupt appearance whichever one is to take both make scientifically testable hypothesizes that attempt to step back from or extend standard evolutionary theory. Evolutionary theory currently is built on a series of rather fragile and often contradictory ideas and is largely without credible proofs.

What has been proven is that micro-evolution occurs which is the ability of an organism to adapt based upon preexisting genetic variability. Something as basic as proving phylogeny such as from amphibians to reptiles has been largely based upon fantastic drawings in textbooks than scientific proof.
The fossil Seymouria is put forth as an example of a bridge but it is no less amphibian than any other amphibian futher more structural similiarity alone does not necessarily indicate phylogeny and with fossils we only have the merest structural remains. One other important fact is that reptiles were living on earth some 30 million years before Seymouria. I think this illustrates a hopeless need to grasp even the faintest evidence as proof.

Regardless I think the debate concerning evolution is good for futhering science because it will force all involved to improve and refine their thinking because currently there are many content to live in a delusion that evolutionary theory is basically complete. I don't believe this and I think honest scientists know that we are just scraping the edge of what is the true complexity of the evolution of life on Earth and we will not make much progress posturing in our little hidey holes.

[Wonder Warthog]

"For example, if your statement were correct, then it would have been impossible for humans to breed plants or animals. But of course humans have been able to breed plants and animals to meet specific "design criteria." In that realm we have literally thousands of examples where a) the explanation is intelligent design, and b) the predictive requirement is met by the fact that the breeders achieved their goals."

"Another example is the production of human insulin by recombinant DNA techniques. The end result is bacteria or yeast that produce human insulin -- the predicted result, and again explained by intelligent design."

"Thus we see that in specific cases that ID does in fact explain new biological facts. Further, the existence of design criteria (which were met in practice) satisfies the criterion of predictability."

Strawman and "bait and switch" logic. A system DESIGNED BY HUMANS is fundamentally different from one supposedly designed by some nebulous entity. I'm talking about explaining "acts of nature", not "acts of man".

And there is no such animal as "existence of design criteria" in nature.

[Wonder Warthog]

"How do you figure?"

So name all those current facts of biology that are explained successfully by "intelligent design" and not by evolution.

"The "Designer" dood it" isn't a scientific answer, but it is what the "intelligent design movement" ultimately boils down to.

[edsheppa]

But you miss the fact that evolution makes philosophical assumptions ...

I assume you're speaking of methodological naturalism. I suppose there is some very general sense in which this can be called a philosophy, but it more akin to, say, an Intuitionist demanding constructive proofs - it is a choice made because it is useful in some way. In the case of methodological naturalism, the utility is readily apparent - it works.

[Wonder Warthog]

"If you believe that science proves evolution then you are intellectually dishonest."

If you believe that science DOESN'T prove evolution than you don't know squat about science. Evolution is simply the best explanation of the observed facts of biology, anthropology, archaeology, paleontology, and many other fields of inquiry.

[edsheppa]

Doesn't ID simply acknowledge the limits of science to date and say, ... something bigger than us is at play?

No. They postulate that the gaps are filled by "intelligent design." That is different from saying that some specific scientific theory is incomplete or can not explain some particular phenomenon. Many scieintific theories are in that boat but, so far as I know, evolution isn't one of them. The most that could be said is that evolution *has not* (yet) explained some relevant phenomena.

[Ma3lst0rm]

It doesn't matter if ID does have a religious agenda and some of it does as do some scientific studies have political agendas many of them secular and leftist. Saying that something is based wholly in religious conviction because it has a religious connection is logic begging to be put out of its misery. If this were the case any scientist that professed belief in a creator would be suspect, a class that would include greats such as Newton and Galileo. If indeed ID is baseless and evolution unassailable then it should be easy to disprove for someone who is truly as enlightened in evolutionary study as they claim to be.

[Coyoteman]

It doesn't matter if ID does have a religious agenda and some of it does

Thank you for the response.

The problem is that ID has had to hide the religious agenda, and falsely assume a scientific pose.

Creation science at least was honest about what it believed.

[Jeff Gordon]

Belief in God requires only faith.

With faith anything is possible. With science only the possible is possible.

Time to change my tag line. Everyone knows where Senator Boxer needs to go. :-)

[Jeff Gordon]

But you miss the fact that evolution makes philosophical assumptions..

Please elaborate. Be specific.

[edsheppa]

Another example is the production of human insulin by recombinant DNA techniques. ... Thus we see that in specific cases that ID does in fact explain new biological facts.

You are confusing science and engineering. ID "theory" has no explanation of human insulin production by recombinant DNA techniques. Feel free to prove me wrong by making a deductive argument from an assumption of design whose conclusion is human insulin production by recombinant DNA techniques.

[Jeff Gordon]

Doesn't ID simply acknowledge the limits of science to date ... \

No. ID attempts to limit science.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

I wonder what will make this one different from the other 9000.

It's not the destination, it's the journey. ;)

[js1138]

I guess my real question is, if ID is science, why do we get accused of religion bashing when we ridicule it?

Scientist ridicule each other's ideas on a regular basis. Does religion really want to throw it's hat into a ring where ideas are subject to constant attempts at disproof?

[bobdsmith]

I don't think that ID can be disproven. It is always a possibility.

I have an object. How can you determine if it is designed just by looking at that object? This is the fundamental problem for Intelligent Design. Lots of people would assume a watch found on a beach is intelligently designed because it is too complex to have arisen naturally. But it isn't entirely the complexity of the watch that drives them to such a conclusion. Instead it is the lack of knowledge of any natural process that could have produced it, coupled with a gut feeling that no such natural process could exist.

However nature can create complex things. Stars are quite complex and weather systems are quite complex too. And we know that in the absense of natural processes to explain these things, people have assumed intelligent design.

And this is the difference between a watch on a beach and a shellfish on a beach. There is a suggested natural process for the origin of the shellfish, there is no such suggested natural process for the origin of watches.

So to really prove that an object is intelligently designed someone has to rule out all possible natural processes, even the ones they haven't yet thought of. An impossible challenge really. The best they can to is rule out all natural processes considered to date, and then what?

It seems to me that Intelligent Design is redundant as it is primarily about trying to test and disprove natural explainations. Scientists have already been doing this for hundreds of years without help from ID. Scientists are also always looking for new natural explainations for phenomena. But what would be the motivation for an ID scientist to seek out new natural explainations? I don't see any motivation to do so.